Re: virus: Bravado
Brett Lane Robertson (unameit@tctc.com)
Tue, 10 Feb 1998 23:08:08 -0500
At 04:46 PM 2/10/98 -0800, you wrote:
>
>First, thanks for the definitions, Brett. If makes it much easier to
>understand what you're saying.
>
>Brett Lane Robertson <unameit@tctc.com> wrote:
>
>> So all I was saying is that the environment (Prof. Tim's "vector") is
>> represented by the meme (an internal representation) on several levels
>(as
>> meme, as meme-complex, as meta-meme, as meta-complex); and, this meme (on
>> whichever level it is purely a separate, or individual, phenomenon) is
>> related to the environment (which it modifies and which is modified by
>it).
>
>Again, I think either you misunderstand what I am calling a "memetic
>vector" or I misunderstand what you are calling "environment".
>
>I am defining "memetic vector" here as any individual that replicates memes.
> And I include computers or any other information processing device
>effectively selects and duplicates (or approximates duplication of) memes in
>this category. But what I am really taking about when I say "memetic
>vector" is you. Your brain. And mine. Each is a vector for the
>transmission of memes.
>
>> I was concerned that Prof. Tim's model represents the perfect correlation
>> between meme (most likely at the level of "meta-meme") and "environment"
>> (whether called meta-meme, meta-complex, or environment) as "zero"...it
>> should not be a null hypothesis but should be a 100% correlation at some
>point.
>
>I don't understand this paragraph.
>
>-Prof. Tim
I saying there has to be a 100% correlation between memetic vector and a
constant...I call the constant environment. You say that in figuring the
vector everything which matches up is averaged to zero. I say that if the
environment (or some constant) is correlated to this vector; then what
matches will correspond 100%--will not be averaged to nothing and canceled
out. You are working from a null hypothesis and averaging all correlations
about the central point according to chance (the typical form of
correlation): I am saying that this equation seems to revert back to chance
recombination and does not allow for "intention" and/or self-order. I
proposed that self order was merely complexification of the environment:
Your equations do not allow for an ordered evolution (which may be a fear of
being called a "creationist"...that is you seem to have problems with the
idea of self-order or intent).
Brett
Brett Lane Robertson
http://www.window.to/mindrec
MindRec ICQ "chat" UIN 6630756
How long a minute is depends on which side of the bathroom
door you're on.